Levin: Memos don't show what Cheney says they do

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Exemplary conduct, child. :roll:

I'm glad you like it, and thanks for another bump.

But since you STILL haven't proven that I was wrong about even ONE of Cheney's lies I posted, here's yet another bump to remind you that, until you can, you are still an ethically challenged, sub-human moral turd and an EPIC FAILURE and a disgrace to the United States of America and to humanity. :thumbsdown: :|
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:[/quote]

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Exemplary conduct, child. :roll:

I'm glad you like it, and thanks for another bump.

But since you STILL haven't proven that I was wrong about even ONE of Cheney's lies I posted, here's yet another bump to remind you that, until you can, you are still an ethically challenged, sub-human moral turd and an EPIC FAILURE and a disgrace to the United States of America and to humanity. :thumbsdown: :|
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:
.
.
< crickets >
.
.
:clock:

[/quote]

And you haven't proven that I said anything about them, kiddo :thumbsup:

Now, I'm a disgrace to the US *and* humanity. You sure project yourself on others, don't you? Just think - every time you respond with more nonsense, you just lower everybody's opinion of you. (if that's possible) Doin' a heckuva job, Harv!

 

[Phokus]

Are conservatives masochists or something? Backing up Cheney almost certainly means you'll get smacked in the face with reality (which appears to have a liberal bias) more often than not.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
Seriously, Harvey, haven't you figured out yet that yelling, screaming, repeating, bolding, countless " :lips: my (_._) " remarks, doesn't change anyone's opinions? What exactly are you trying to do here? You're a broken record. Just put "I hate Bush & Cheney" in your signature and leave the performances out of your responses.

Facts and logic don't seem to do anything with you Republicans either. What are we supposed to do, torture you until you admit you're wrong? Maybe Obama really should introduce those re-education camps you conservatives keep crying about, because you idiots have some sort of immunity to reality.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

And you haven't proven that I said anything about them, kiddo :thumbsup:

Oh... OK. Then let's settle the question once and for all...

DID CHENEY LIE?

It's a simple question. You can answer it in one syllable.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
...Why is no one prosecuting? Interesting problem, isnt it?

Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish jurist who brought Augusto Pinochet to justice, is investigating Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, William J. Haynes II, David Addington and Doug Feith for crimes against humanity in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo. You are correct that officials of the Bush administration have not been prosecuted yet...

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

And you haven't proven that I said anything about them, kiddo :thumbsup:

Oh... OK. Then let's settle the question once and for all...

DID CHENEY LIE?

It's a simple question. You can answer it in one syllable.

Considering how many words you've attempted to put in my mouth, and the assumptions you've made in the past, why are you asking this now? You should have asked it at the beginning. Why should I have any impetus to respond in any sensible way to a spittle-covered keyboard commando preteen?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

And you haven't proven that I said anything about them, kiddo :thumbsup:

Oh... OK. Then let's settle the question once and for all...

DID CHENEY LIE?

It's a simple question. You can answer it in one syllable.

Considering how many words you've attempted to put in my mouth, and the assumptions you've made in the past, why are you asking this now? You should have asked it at the beginning. Why should I have any impetus to respond in any sensible way to a spittle-covered keyboard commando preteen?

Why not? I'm not the only one who has read your posts the same way I do. You could reply with a simple "yes" or "no" and save a lot of future misunderstandings with me and a lot of others who would prefer to know exactly what you meant. There are plenty of topics worth a good discussion. Arguing over misunderstandings is a waste of time and energy. :light:

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why is no one prosecuting? Interesting problem, isnt it?

For the same reason we didn't go after FDR and his crew for interning the Japanese.

Or Johnson and Nixon for their illegal bombings during Vietnam.

Or a dozen other situations where the President did something illegal in the name of national security.

I don't know of any situation in which we legal went after the President for something he did during his term and while acting as President.

I doubt that fact will change any time soon.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Why not? I'm not the only one who has read your posts the same way I do.

Back it up. Heck, show me my quotes, since you keep blabbing on and on about the things I've said.

You could reply with a simple "yes" or "no" and save a lot of future misunderstandings with me and a lot of others who would prefer to know exactly what you meant. There are plenty of topics worth a good discussion. Arguing over misunderstandings is a waste of time and energy. :light:

It's not a "misunderstanding" if you come in guns blazing, epithet-dropping with general hatred in your message.

You're nothing but a pathetic hack, and I really don't have time for your childishness.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Harvey

Why not? I'm not the only one who has read your posts the same way I do.

Back it up. Heck, show me my quotes, since you keep blabbing on and on about the things I've said.

Back what up? I wasn't talking about what I or anyone else says you said. I'm asking YOU to define your own position.

You could reply with a simple "yes" or "no" and save a lot of future misunderstandings with me and a lot of others who would prefer to know exactly what you meant. There are plenty of topics worth a good discussion. Arguing over misunderstandings is a waste of time and energy. :light:

It's not a "misunderstanding" if you come in guns blazing, epithet-dropping with general hatred in your message.[/quote]

So... Here's your chance. Tell us exactly what you believe, and no one will mistake your meaning in the future. Did Cheney lie? The options are real binary and no more than two or three letters.

You're nothing but a pathetic hack, and I really don't have time for your childishness.

Aww... I wasn't blazing anything, here. You say I didn't get your meaning right. I asked you to give us a reference so we (or at least I) wouldn't mistake your intended meaning again in the future, and all you can manage is that.??? Pathetic. :roll:

Why are you so afrad of defining your own views?

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why is no one prosecuting? Interesting problem, isnt it?

For the same reason we didn't go after FDR and his crew for interning the Japanese.
Or Johnson and Nixon for their illegal bombings during Vietnam.
Or a dozen other situations where the President did something illegal in the name of national security.
I don't know of any situation in which we legal went after the President for something he did during his term and while acting as President.
I doubt that fact will change any time soon.

There is now an international community with more interest in pursuing violations of war crimes and international law; Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish jurist who brought Augusto Pinochet to justice, is investigating Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, William J. Haynes II, David Addington and Doug Feith for crimes against humanity in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo. You are correct that officials of the Bush administration have not been prosecuted yet...

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Harvey
Why are you so afrad of defining your own views?

Why do you attack views you presume I have before I've even stated them? I have said *nothing* about my views re: Cheney (except for calling BS on your "he always lies" statement), yet you've called me all the names your little hate-filled mind can think of.

I'm not going to give you the pleasure of letting you know either way - no matter what I state, you've already made up your mind.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Harvey

Why are you so afrad of defining your own views?

Why do you attack views you presume I have before I've even stated them? I have said *nothing* about my views re: Cheney (except for calling BS on your "he always lies" statement), yet you've called me all the names your little hate-filled mind can think of.

I'm not going to give you the pleasure of letting you know either way - no matter what I state, you've already made up your mind.

I didn't "presume" anything. I stated the meaning I took from your posts. You say I didn't understand them correctly so help us out, and tell us exactly what you meant.

If we understand what you really mean, we can reply to agree or disagree with your statements, but at least, we'll agree on what we agree or disagree about.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Harvey

Why are you so afrad of defining your own views?

Why do you attack views you presume I have before I've even stated them? I have said *nothing* about my views re: Cheney (except for calling BS on your "he always lies" statement), yet you've called me all the names your little hate-filled mind can think of.

I'm not going to give you the pleasure of letting you know either way - no matter what I state, you've already made up your mind.

I didn't "presume" anything. I stated the meaning I took from your posts.

Once again, please show me these posts. If you didn't presume, you must've ASSumed, and that just made an ass out of you.

What was it you said? "Crickets"?

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Once again, please show me these posts. If you didn't presume, you must've ASSumed, and that just made an ass out of you.

What was it you said? "Crickets"?

I've quoted your posts in many of mine, and you've replied quoting many of my posts and whining about how I got your meaning all wrong. You can start with any of those.

If you're unwilling to clarify the meaning of your own posts, the ones you say I got wrong, you're a spineless POS, and you can screw yourself. :thumbsdown: :|

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Once again, please show me these posts. If you didn't presume, you must've ASSumed, and that just made an ass out of you.

What was it you said? "Crickets"?

You're a spineless POS. Screw yourself. :thumbsdown: :|

In other words, you can't, so you resort *yet again* to your "big person" words. Congrats!

Where are these posts that you claim I made?

Originally posted by: Harvey
I didn't "presume" anything. I stated the meaning I took from your posts.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why is no one prosecuting? Interesting problem, isnt it?

For the same reason we didn't go after FDR and his crew for interning the Japanese.
Or Johnson and Nixon for their illegal bombings during Vietnam.
Or a dozen other situations where the President did something illegal in the name of national security.
I don't know of any situation in which we legal went after the President for something he did during his term and while acting as President.
I doubt that fact will change any time soon.

There is now an international community with more interest in pursuing violations of war crimes and international law; Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish jurist who brought Augusto Pinochet to justice, is investigating Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, William J. Haynes II, David Addington and Doug Feith for crimes against humanity in the torture of detainees at Guantanamo. You are correct that officials of the Bush administration have not been prosecuted yet...

Garzon is a joke and has no jurisdiction over these people and what they did. The very idea of him going after these people is a joke.

The Spanish attorney general has himself recommended that the charges against these six be dropped. And the government looks to be taking steps to change the laws so that judges like Garzon can't launch their own personal crusades.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Once again, please show me these posts. If you didn't presume, you must've ASSumed, and that just made an ass out of you.

What was it you said? "Crickets"?

I've quoted your posts in many of mine, and you've replied quoting many of my posts and whining about how I got your meaning all wrong. You can start with any of those.

If you're unwilling to clarify the meaning of your own posts, the ones you say I got wrong, you're a spineless POS, and you can screw yourself. :thumbsdown: :|

Nice edit :roll:

Here it is in *again*, because obviously it takes that to get through to you:

I have no idea what posts you are referring to that define my position on Cheney whatsoever *besides* the point I made refuting your BS "he always lies" post.

Did that make it through to you? Perhaps you've confused me with someone else? Thus isn't that long of a thread - it shouldn't be too hard to find something of mine to quote, eh?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Once again, please show me these posts. If you didn't presume, you must've ASSumed, and that just made an ass out of you.

What was it you said? "Crickets"?

I've quoted your posts in many of mine, and you've replied quoting many of my posts and whining about how I got your meaning all wrong. You can start with any of those.

If you're unwilling to clarify the meaning of your own posts, the ones you say I got wrong, you're a spineless POS, and you can screw yourself. :thumbsdown: :|

Nice edit :roll:

Here it is in *again*, because obviously it takes that to get through to you:

I have no idea what posts you are referring to that define my position on Cheney whatsoever *besides* the point I made refuting your BS "he always lies" post.

Did that make it through to you? Perhaps you've confused me with someone else? Thus isn't that long of a thread - it shouldn't be too hard to find something of mine to quote, eh?

Well?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Garzon is a joke

Pinochet wasn't laughing when Garzon held him in Spain on war crime charges.

and has no jurisdiction over these people and what they did. The very idea of him going after these people is a joke.

The Spanish attorney general has himself recommended that the charges against these six be dropped. And the government looks to be taking steps to change the laws so that judges like Garzon can't launch their own personal crusades.

You are ignorant about Universal Jurisdiction.

As typical, you beg the question with a lie, calling this a 'personal crusade' by Garzon. Apparently, the DA had a personal crusade against OJ Simpson, too.

Why don't you point me to one instance where Universal jurisdiction has wrongly convicted foreign leaders for war crimes?

How about its use by Israel to convict Eichmann in 1961? How about the pending case against China under investigation for genocide in Tibet?

Of course, China has made comments similar to yours; it's not surprising that you are on their side, against the side of justice and human rights.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Garzon is a joke

Pinochet wasn't laughing when Garzon held him in Spain on war crime charges.

and has no jurisdiction over these people and what they did. The very idea of him going after these people is a joke.
The Spanish attorney general has himself recommended that the charges against these six be dropped. And the government looks to be taking steps to change the laws so that judges like Garzon can't launch their own personal crusades.

You are ignorant about Universal Jurisdiction.
As typical, you beg the question with a lie, calling this a 'personal crusade' by Garzon. Apparently, the DA had a personal crusade against OJ Simpson, too.
Why don't you point me to one instance where Universal jurisdiction has wrongly convicted foreign leaders for war crimes?
How about its use by Israel to convict Eichmann in 1961? How about the pending case against China under investigation for genocide in Tibet?
Of course, China has made comments similar to yours; it's not surprising that you are on their side, against the side of justice and human rights.

The Spanish Attorney General also recommended dropping charges against Generalissimo Pinochet. Didn't happen. Won't happen here, either. Messrs. Gonzales, Bybee, Yoo, Haynes, Addington and Feith shall be safe so long as they remain in the United states, but shall need to be careful where they travel overseas.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Once again, please show me these posts. If you didn't presume, you must've ASSumed, and that just made an ass out of you.

What was it you said? "Crickets"?

I've quoted your posts in many of mine, and you've replied quoting many of my posts and whining about how I got your meaning all wrong. You can start with any of those.

If you're unwilling to clarify the meaning of your own posts, the ones you say I got wrong, you're a spineless POS, and you can screw yourself. :thumbsdown: :|

Nice edit :roll:

Here it is in *again*, because obviously it takes that to get through to you:

I have no idea what posts you are referring to that define my position on Cheney whatsoever *besides* the point I made refuting your BS "he always lies" post.

Did that make it through to you? Perhaps you've confused me with someone else? Thus isn't that long of a thread - it shouldn't be too hard to find something of mine to quote, eh?

Well?

Are you still around, ol' Harv?

 

[ZeGermans]

how is it even a discussion on who's more trustworthy, pelosi or the fucking CIA? THAT'S THEIR WHOLE JOB

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: ZeGermans
how is it even a discussion on who's more trustworthy, pelosi or the fucking CIA? THAT'S THEIR WHOLE JOB

Exactly! The CIA is a professional organization with dedicated experts in misinformation misdirection and deception. Speaker Pelosi is a mere dilettante.




What was your point exactly? I thought this was the Cheney thread...